Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday December 18, 2015 @12:30PM
from the better-hope-you-don't-look-suspicious dept.

Press2ToContinue writes: In the film Minority Report, people are rounded up by the Precrime police agency before they actually commit the crime. In the movie, this pre-crime information is provided by 'pre-cognition' savants floating in a goopy nutrient bath who can apparently see the future.
Replace those gibbering pre-cog mutants with Facewatch. It's a system that lets retailers, publicans, and restaurateurs share private video footage with the police and each other. It is integrated with real-time face recognition systems, such as NEC's NeoFace. Where previously a member of staff had to keep an eye out for people, on the crowdsourced Facewatch watch list, now the system can automatically tell you if someone on the watch list has just entered the premises. A member of staff can then keep an eye on that person, or ask them politely (or not) to leave.

In principle it's different because its intent is different. My family album is not the moral equivalent to a DIY Most Wanted List generated by whatever goon wants to generate it then shared as fact with other goons. If the intent of tendering the video is to imply the people on the video have committed some crime or are likely to or have some other moral flaw, then that goes by another name of slander.

IF the intent of the video is to pass around the time and location of babes, then that goes by the name of

It also seems likely to fall foul of data protection laws. In order to store and share such data they must compost l comply with the rules, which include things like allowing subject access and correction.

A good way to fight back might be for large numbers of people to do periodic data requests. Then the company will have to sort and supply large amounts of CCTV footage in exchange for minimal compensation. Their process won't be 100% accurate so you are bound to get other people's data from time to time.

Because it can be used to "punish" people without any recourse. Like I said in another message, suppose the retailer takes a dislike to you for whatever petty reason and they add you to this system. Now you're going to be harassed and chased out of stores and what can you do about it?

Because you're not willigly sharing pictures of yourself, instead some pictures are being shared without your consent.

A private business can employ CCTVs on its premises, but it should not be able to share the videos with anyone else (but the police) without consent from the people in those videos. Doing so is a major privacy violation.

So? They can put up a sign. "Premises under video surveillance."

You don't own the rights to the images by any means at all. The photographer does.

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy while robbing a store. The danger with this list/sharing is that it could be abused, and restricting it to people actually convicted would be wise IMO. OTOH if your face is on tape pointing a gun at a cashier, there's no part of that you should expect to end well.

Not to be a dick, but what part of "filing reports with law enforcement." was difficult to grasp exactly? (Happy to improve my English, but you could be a dick cherry picking content to troll with). In the cases you mentioned, the private person can't legally release the videos because it's evidence. (possible != legal) Police agencies can release evidence to the public after criminal proceedings are completed (sometimes prior) because evidence _is_ public property.

Why? How is that any different than a retailer seeing someone that's a known pickpocket or shoplifter passing his window and headed into a colleague's store, and calling that colleague on the phone to say, "Hey, Bob, that guy, Sticky-Fingered Lou, is just walking into your store - heads up!"

Specifically, why is that creepy? It's creeps that these people have to deal with every day, and this is an approach to dealing with it. I can tell you've never been involved in retail trade with walk-in public custo

See my reply above scentcone. It's very different and the reason the guy in your scenario gets away with it is because no one can prove he did it. It's the same with employee blacklisting. There are laws to protect people, but employers sneak around those laws- at their own peril.

Uh no, the two shop owners would "get away with it" because it is not illegal (at least in the US). Here in the US we call this behavior, giving your neighbor and possibly competitor a heads up that he may be about to be robbed, being a good neighbor. Now, the shop owner being called can't simply kick Lou out unless he has actually caught Lou shoplifting a time or two and properly notified Lou that Lou is no longer welcome on the premises but he is certainly free to more vigorously watch Lou in an attempt t

Well, after you approach the accusing shop for proof and they can't give it to you because they have no video evidence and the only employee who "saw" it happen is your ex, the shop will probably have a chat with your ex about the rules and if it happens a second time they will either pay you and your lawyer a large sum of money or fire your ex or both. Both times they will promptly remove you from the list and inform anyone sharing the list of the mistake or pay you and your lawyer a lot of money. It reall

It may depend on whether you've got the money for a serious lawsuit, or a lawyer who will take it on contingency. If not, the accusing shop really has no incentive to help you, and whether they do will depend on the company.

True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.

If trivial crap like that gets you on the list then the list is worthless and won't be used. On the other hand, if you have a long history of 'returns' or using bad coupons that probably is something that other businesses are interested in.

> If trivial crap like that gets you on the list then the list is worthless and won't be used.

Toddlers are on the No Fly List...

If 95% of the list is useful, it will be used. The problem is oversight. We've all seen the stories in the news where someone's receipt at a restaurant is printed and has "Asshole" or similar coded somewhere that the server didn't expect the end customer to see, I guarantee that unless there is a very stringent submission protocol for this crowdsourced watchlist for stores wit

That's just fear mongering nonsense, that wouldn't even be remotely legal.

There are very few exceptions by which businesses can gather data on an individual without their permission, and crime prevention is one of them.

So all this can legally be used for is crime prevention, if it's used for being selective about customers then they've crossed the line into illegality and will be liable for massive fines (far more than it would've cost to just serve you).

"So next time roma gypsy gangs come across from the continent on the ferry to rape just about every shop in a particular city / shopping centre in the space of a few hours before heading back home again on the ferry with a boat load of stolen shit"

I was using an example of a real actual problem, saying the UK has a roma gypsy gang theft problem right now is no different to saying the middle east has an Islamic terrorism problem.

It doesn't in any way imply that I believe that all, or even close the majority of muslims are terrorists, which is actually racist, it's merely a statement of fact - you're surely not going to deny the middle east has an Islamic terrorism problem right now? No, I didn't think so, so why pretend someone is racist for also stat

Fact is that the majority of store thefts are inside jobs. Compared to that the roma are a minor nuisance. As for the middle east having an Islamic terrorism problem, what it has in reality is a "regime change didn't work so well the last few times we tried it, and now we have to clean up the mess we made, so let's do the whole regime change thing again because it's the thing we have the most experience with.

You seem to be taking some random stat from the US and applying it globally, which is complete bollocks. In some stores employee theft is completely and utterly solved, they have zero theft by employees such that external theft, particularly by crime gangs are their biggest problem. You can't arbitrarily take one metric from one country (which may well include data on stealing office post-its and so forth) and suggest therefore that another problem in another country, with different metrics, and different l

True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.

Any shop is private property. Any shop can refuse to do business with you, and ban you from their premises. If or when they do that, trying to enter the store is trespassing. No need to put you "on the list".

> Any shop can refuse to do business with you, and ban you from their premises.... No need to put you "on the list".

That's not the problem, the problem is the list covers LOTS of shops. Suppose you go to an auto shop who has done substandard work and the owner doesn't want to do the work over or refund you. So you sue, and in retaliation he adds you to this list as a problem customer. Suddenly you're barred from half the shops in town.

True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.

Yes, because most retailers' main purpose is to turn people away rather than selling them stuff.

It will be misused to an extent much less than shops are currently abused by shoplifters and people not paying for services and food. And we know that is rampant.

What recourse does a shop owner have against a shoplifter? First they have to prove the shoplifting happened (video evidence, admission or a perp dumb enough to hang around with unpaid merchandise in his pockets until an officer drops by in the next hour or so). then they have to get the prosecutors to care about prosecuting a single digit dollar c

Where are the laws against making false accusations? Where are the laws against not allowing members of the public into your public accomodation without actual proof that they have harmed you and are likely to harm you and that you have previously given them legal notice that they are not welcome on your premises because of those prior actions? just look for them. They exist in every US jurisdiction. just because you are too lazy to find them does not mean they don't exist. Just because you claim they don't

A list that subjects people to heightened security and/or denial services to people that you can wind up on without any explanation, notification or evidence.vsA list that subjects people to heightened security and/or denial services to people that you can wind up on without any explanation, notification or evidence.

Well sort of. i actually agree with you on the principle but not on the actual current legal situation in the US. Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose. But once those hopps have been successfully negotiated because of actual wrongdoing then, yes, shops have options.

Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose.

They only have to jump through hoops if the person they're turning away is in a protected class. In which case all they have to do is keep a record of previously telling that person why they're not welcome in the store. Throwing someone out because they're an evangelical: not allowed. Throwing an evangelical out of your store because they're proselytizing your customers? Perfectly OK. Likewise with skin color, sexual orientation, etc.

When someone who's a known disruptive jerk or petty thief has been tol

I hope you will be the first one on the shop lifting list accidentally, so you won't be able to get food anymore, not even online because they online stores also check the list. They know who you are because not only did they take a look at your face, they also linked it to all the credit card in your wallet as you passed a scanner, as well as the identity of any blutooth device you own.

Where will you go to buy new tinfoil for your hat making, now that the owners of the local tinfoil retailers have bugged your dog's water dish in order to better follow you with their black retail drones at night?

So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?

Of course it's possible. Just like it's possible that a person who runs a bakery could mistakenly think that somebody is the person who's been stealing their cookies, and tell the guy in the store next door to keep an eye on that person because he's now being seen walking into that other shop. Are you saying that because people don't always have 100% perfect knowledge of what other people are doing, they shouldn't be allowed to share information with each other? If you were in a store, as a customer, and t

So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?

Sure, possible. However, if an "innocent person" (in other words, just any regular customer) ends up on that list, it costs the shops money. So it's in their own best interest to not put anyone on the list you doesn't belong there.

So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?

It is self evident that you need some sort of oversight on this, and the ability for people to challenge mistakes. But it's not like the shopkeepers can arrest you and chuck you in prison with no evidence.

It's just like if you get barred from a pub. If the landlord mistakenly thought you started a fight and threw you out, you can always go and reason with him later. If he won't see sense, you find a different pub to go to, and eventually so will everyone else if he carries on being an arsehole.

Listen, you: The problem here is such a 'service' sets a dangerous precedent. When it becomes so ubiquitos that government and police say, 'Everyone is using it, so we're going to use it everywhere', suddenly you're living in an even worse surveillance society than you're living in right now -- and if you live in the UK, it's already pretty damned bad from what I hear. Add to this technology: License plate tracking technology, telephone and internet tracking, financial transaction tracking, and (if policiti

We're already very close to living in a world where everyone is identified and tracked in realtime 24/7/365; you would hurry that process along? Do you enjoy having no privacy whatsoever? Or are you one of 'those' people who has been indoctrinated into believing that 'privacy' is something that only criminals and other wrong-doers seek?

And if you are conscientious member of society, you will help them out from time to time by being truthful and honest and cooperative if you have witnessed a crime. You know, Golden Rule and being a good neighbor and all.

Retailers post pictures on their wall saying "Do no accept checks from this person". It's just a reputation system committed to paper. It's not really a problem, but it's also not something the government (police) should be involved in because government blacklists violate due process rights.

It's a problem because of two things: One, it is a distributed system subscribed to by a large number of retailers. And more importantly, Two: If a store had my picture up for writing a bad cheque and was wrong about it, I could sue them for libel and have it removed. From this system it appears there isn't that level of accountability. Some register jockey might get their shorts in a knot over some interaction with you and "get you back" by putting you in the system and you will have a very difficult

Do you honestly think this system isn't full of audit trails about which shop posted what and that shops are going to give every employee rights to enter "problem people" into the system? Have you ever been employed by an actual business? The real world works completely different than what you seem to be imagining here.

Retailers have 'fixed' that by getting laws that a bounced check can have an 'electronic debit' so it automatically debits your account + $30+ fee regardless of your funds. In court you can even get up to 4x the value of the check.

The bank 'eats' the overage and then bills the customer another $30+ fee per day your account is in overdraft.

Retailers post pictures on their wall saying "Do no accept checks from this person". It's just a reputation system committed to paper. It's not really a problem, but it's also not something the government (police) should be involved in because government blacklists violate due process rights.

Your society still accepts personal cheques?

What is it like in 1950's land?

However the real issue here is the speed at which data can be shared and the lack of checks and balances. One false accusation and your reputation is ruined across town, not just in the store where your jilted ex works.

However the Libertardian businessgeniuses have assured me because this is being run by PRIVATE INDUSTRY (yay, hooray) it's perfectly safe and will never be abused.

If somebody has a history of shoplifting, keeping an eye on that person when they're in your store seems perfectly sensible to me.

I also have to wonder why half the article was about Minority Report when there are few similarities between pre-crime and this system. In Minority Report arrests were based on information from the future, while this system is based on past information. In Minority Report people were arrested and charged for crimes they had yet to commit, while this system simply gives stores better information on which customers they need to keep an eye on. The differences are so pronounced I fail to see why Minority Report even needed to be mentioned.

In Minority Report people were arrested* for crimes that they wouldn't necessarily commit (the precogs weren't perfect), there was no defense from the accusation, and if you got falsely accused you were screwed. This is the same in all respects except instead of being arrested you might get denied an important service (I'm fine with the "keep on eye on" option).

* Yes, but, often the pre-crime police weren't able to get to the scene of the crime quickly enough for that to be the issue. If only the Apple Watch could vibrate when you were about to commit a crime to gently remind you....

If the guy's already murdered someone in a fit of passion, then, sure, arrest him. If I remember the movie correctly, they were arresting people who hadn't committed crimes rather than just making sure the crime does not take place.

You know we've been able to share information about habitual shoplifters for literal centuries, right? Retailers, since the dawn of time, have shared information with each other about who's likely to steal what.

The problem with a system like this is it's not backed up by any real veracity - Back in the day you knew to watch Ol' Thieving Bob because three other shop-keeps had told you about his escapades (and maybe you ignored one of them at first because you knew he'd always had it out for Bob to begin with

Businesses want customers, and they want to spend the minimum amount they must on things like security. If this system is flagging too many people that shouldn't be on it that drives away customers, and makes them spend more on security to watch the people on the list.

Megol, you don't seem to understand that people have all manner of tools available to go after a shop that erroneously accuses them of bad behavior and all manner of tools available to go after a shop that refuses them service without that shop first following a bunch of legalities that start with said person having committed a bad act against that particular shop (or another shop owned by the same owner). At least in the States. If you don't have the same legal protections available in Europe then, well at

Except that does nothing for the occasional person blacklisted. If Target decides to blacklist me, they lose something over a thousand dollars of revenue (not profit) a year. That's not going to put a dent in their bottom line. It still leaves me out in the cold.

In my view, it crosses the line when it infringes on your activity. If Facewatch gives you a warning that this person might deserve some scrutiny in case they shoplift, and store owners watch your behavior, but allow you to shop and act normally, that's behind the line. It crosses over the line when the reaction to a warning is to refuse to let you in the door, or escort you out upon entering, particularly when there is no recourse to correct the information.

Even now, businesses could use this kind of information to determine whether or not to offer you a bargain, a deal, a coupon relative to the marked price. For businesses like Safeway (US), that routinely offers price breaks on items that they know you buy or want you to start buying, incorporating Facewatch into the mix could lead toward price discrimination that would be very objectionable.

For example, you get into several car accidents because you were drunk and behind the wheel. After a few strikes, you are not allowed to drive any more for a while. When you can drive again, all off your information is shared to all the insurance companies who are all going to give you high rates because of your past activity. The only reason they will give you insurance at all is because there is a state mandate that they have to, otherwise, they may ch

The important questions are what level of evidence Facewatch requires, and what retailers do with the data. If it requires a conviction for shoplifting to get on the list, that's cool. If retailers just keep an eye on you, and let you go about your honest business, I have no problem with that.

A friend of mine was working security at a store. He picked someone out and shadowed them. The shadowee accused my friend of picking him out because of his skin color. My friend said, "No, it's because it's sum

I know this is a bit nit-picky, but it feels very un-Slashdot-like to not attribute an idea to its origins, which in the case of 'precrime' would be the Philip K. Dick story [wikipedia.org] on which the aforementioned movie is based.

I know this is a bit nit-picky, but it feels very un-Slashdot-like to not attribute an idea to its origins, which in the case of 'precrime' would be the Philip K. Dick story [wikipedia.org] on which the aforementioned movie is based.

Eventually everything worth watching will be based on a Phillp K Dick story,

PubWatch has been running in UK pubs since the 1990's, it's a voluntary organisation where landlords share photographs of troublemakers between themselves and with police. They probably include video by now.

Remember the corporate police force out of Robocop? In the UK they have a corporate police force, being the City of London Corporation's private police force. And they kick in doors all over the country, together with other corporate representatives (and sometimes a token member of the local police force, to add legimitacy and not to step too much on their toes).